DaVinci Code Protesters

[ncdisneyfan]

BTW, don't you think that ncdisneyfan spreads a very suspicious troll-smell? Usually people who have such a low post-count, but are involved in such a discussion like this are
Of course I have no evidence for this, but if necessary I can 'prove' it in 12 steps

See, these are the kind of things you say that just make you look silly. Instead of having a logical debate about what we're talking about, you presenting "evidence" to support what you so clearly believe to be fact, and me presenting "evidence" to support what I believe as fact (which, incidentally, I have offered to do under one condition), you resort to icons that show rolling on the floor, smirks, etc..., or resort to trying to discredit the person, rather than the argument. Personally, I could guess as to why you do it, but it would just be conjecture on my part, and only my opinion, so it doesn't really matter. But there must be a reason why you do it. And whether you have 2 more posts or 5,000 more posts than me, it doesn't matter, does it? I mean, do I have to have a certain post count to be considered credible, or to make a point?

 

[ncdisneyfan]

Sorry but I have never said that I don't think it can't be proven to be true. In fact I haven't even said what I believe. I was arguing that both sides believe that that their points are valid and do not accept the others because of what they believe. My point is based on the difinition of the word bias.

My point is also based on bias. I'm not biased to my side, meaning I can't look objectively at other points of view and logically determine them to be right or wrong based on the proof/evidence provided. I have done that, with many different religious points of view. And, after studying them, I have personally come to the conclusion that based upon the best possible arguments, I believe the Bible to be true, that God created the universe, etc...

As for your 12 steps to logical, scientific proof in regard to the Bible being true and the existance of God, please post them. I would love to read them and I'm sure so would many others. I was raised in the Anglican Church and have read many things in regard to the existance of God and on the subject of the Bible yet no one has ever offered scientific proof before. It has been based on faith that it is true.

They don't work like that. It's not like a "top 12" list. When I took the classes and did the research that went through these 12 points, it took 6 months, not 6 minutes. You have to begin at point 1, make sure everyone is on the same page regarding point 1, then move to point 2, make sure everyone is on the same page regarding point 2, move to point 3, etc... It is a rolling accumulation of knowledge and findings that will enable you to see, logically and scientifically, what is true. And as I've said, if anyone has a "bent" to not believe, nor want to be convinced regardless of what they hear, then they won't be, not b/c they can't be b/c of the evidence, but b/c they won't be b/c they choose not to be. Remember, if evidence shows that one's beliefs are wrong and just don't hold up, for that person to believe differently, he/she would have to admit, not just to others but to themselves, that what they've believed for so long has been wrong. People don't like to admit that they are, or have been wrong, about what they believe, ESPECIALLY when it relates to religion. So unless someone can get to that point, where they can say "OK, I might be wrong, I might be right, show me what you have and I'll decide objectively", there's no hope to convince them.

I'd be happy to walk people through the points, via private e-mail, with the group of people who wish to go through them, b/c that will keep those who just want to "mess around" and act foolishly from posting all over the place. Just let me know via PM with the email you wish to use.

 

[declansdad]

My point is also based on bias. I'm not biased to my side, meaning I can't look objectively at other points of view and logically determine them to be right or wrong based on the proof/evidence provided. I have done that, with many different religious points of view. And, after studying them, I have personally come to the conclusion that based upon the best possible arguments, I believe the Bible to be true, that God created the universe, etc...


They don't work like that. It's not like a "top 12" list. When I took the classes and did the research that went through these 12 points, it took 6 months, not 6 minutes. You have to begin at point 1, make sure everyone is on the same page regarding point 1, then move to point 2, make sure everyone is on the same page regarding point 2, move to point 3, etc... It is a rolling accumulation of knowledge and findings that will enable you to see, logically and scientifically, what is true. And as I've said, if anyone has a "bent" to not believe, nor want to be convinced regardless of what they hear, then they won't be, not b/c they can't be b/c of the evidence, but b/c they won't be b/c they choose not to be. Remember, if evidence shows that one's beliefs are wrong and just don't hold up, for that person to believe differently, he/she would have to admit, not just to others but to themselves, that what they've believed for so long has been wrong. People don't like to admit that they are, or have been wrong, about what they believe, ESPECIALLY when it relates to religion. So unless someone can get to that point, where they can say "OK, I might be wrong, I might be right, show me what you have and I'll decide objectively", there's no hope to convince them.

I'd be happy to walk people through the points, via private e-mail, with the group of people who wish to go through them, b/c that will keep those who just want to "mess around" and act foolishly from posting all over the place. Just let me know via PM with the email you wish to use.

I'm sorry but it seems to me that you are doing the same thing that those you accuse of not providing their "mountains of evidence" are doing.

This is the first time in all your messages that you mentioned that this was a course you took. I teach for a living and if asked I could give you a synopsis of any course that I teach. Surely you could do the same. Before taking your course I would also ask where does your course come from or who offered the course. All valid questions that are used to determine whether the course would be worth it or not.

 

[Viking]

My point is also based on bias. I'm not biased to my side, meaning I can't look objectively at other points of view and logically determine them to be right or wrong based on the proof/evidence provided. I have done that, with many different religious points of view. And, after studying them, I have personally come to the conclusion that based upon the best possible arguments, I believe the Bible to be true, that God created the universe, etc...


They don't work like that. It's not like a "top 12" list. When I took the classes and did the research that went through these 12 points, it took 6 months, not 6 minutes. You have to begin at point 1, make sure everyone is on the same page regarding point 1, then move to point 2, make sure everyone is on the same page regarding point 2, move to point 3, etc... It is a rolling accumulation of knowledge and findings that will enable you to see, logically and scientifically, what is true. And as I've said, if anyone has a "bent" to not believe, nor want to be convinced regardless of what they hear, then they won't be, not b/c they can't be b/c of the evidence, but b/c they won't be b/c they choose not to be. Remember, if evidence shows that one's beliefs are wrong and just don't hold up, for that person to believe differently, he/she would have to admit, not just to others but to themselves, that what they've believed for so long has been wrong. People don't like to admit that they are, or have been wrong, about what they believe, ESPECIALLY when it relates to religion. So unless someone can get to that point, where they can say "OK, I might be wrong, I might be right, show me what you have and I'll decide objectively", there's no hope to convince them.

I'd be happy to walk people through the points, via private e-mail, with the group of people who wish to go through them, b/c that will keep those who just want to "mess around" and act foolishly from posting all over the place. Just let me know via PM with the email you wish to use.

Seems to me that from knocking on people's doors you now switched to use internet bulletin boards to find new followers.

 

[ncdisneyfan]

I'm sorry but it seems to me that you are doing the same thing that those you accuse of not providing their "mountains of evidence" are doing.

This is the first time in all your messages that you mentioned that this was a course you took. I teach for a living and if asked I could give you a synopsis of any course that I teach. Surely you could do the same. Before taking your course I would also ask where does your course come from or who offered the course. All valid questions that are used to determine whether the course would be worth it or not.

I don't think I'm doing the same at all. I've offered to provide the steps, just in a different setting. Not sure why that would scare anyone. Others have said they have evidence, "mountains" of it, but when asked to provide it, have simply not responded or have changed the subject to focus on me, rather than the evidence. I don't see the similarity.

I could give a synopsis as well, just as you could for your courses. But a synopsis doesn't provide evidence, just an overview. I wouldn't be convinced by an overview, nor would I expect anyone else to, either. That's why I've offered the whole thing. My course, as you say, which actually I said "classes", was not in a school but at my church; the reading and extra research was done on my time. It comes from a book entitled "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist", written by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek.

 

[goofygirl]

-Count out good ol' Albert, as he was a product of his time and the belief in religion was deeply rooted in him due the education of his time.
BTW, this is why I'm against exposing children to religion before they are able to THINK for themselves. Say, like age 14.

-JPS nevertheless believed in a creator. He just put him before evolution: HE created and then let evolution do its work.

-Mendel doctored his result and can't be taken completely serious as a scientist.

But there is a multitude of examples of the church's -and other religions'- practice of suppressing scientific progress. Ever heard of Galileo Galilei?

No matter how much Al was indoctrinated as a child, I'm sure he got to a point in his life where he could make his own decisions.

Mendel cannot be taken seriously?? I beg to differ. His discovery of the dominant and recessive genes still holds up today and is taught in biology classes all across the world.

Yes, I heard of Galileo. You know who apologized on behalf of the Church for the mistreatment of him? Pope John Paul II!

 

[Viking]

No matter how much Al was indoctrinated as a child, I'm sure he got to a point in his life where he could make his own decisions.

Mendel cannot be taken seriously?? I beg to differ. His discovery of the dominant and recessive genes still holds up today and is taught in biology classes all across the world.

Yes, I heard of Galileo. You know who apologized on behalf of the Church for the mistreatment of him? Pope John Paul II!

-Sorry, but in the case of Einstein I disagree, because he was not a victim of his education, but also of the society he grew up in.

-I did not say that Mendel cannot be taken seriously. I just said that he could not be taken COMPLETELY serious. His theoretical work was more or less perfect, but unfortunately he considered it necessary to doctor his experiments' results so as to match his theories - and that is considered a sin among scientists.

-Yes I heard of JPS, and it is admirable that the church needed only 400 years to apologize

 

[noodleknitter]

Actually, Einstien didn't believe in God. He used the word god to encompass the whole big universe, etc. This article comes from a very conservative web-site , and explains the lingo used.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i3/god_talk.asp

 

[Viking]

Thanks for posting this.
I also thought that Einstein's 'Gott würfelt nicht' (God doesn't paly dice) was a sign of his faith. As your article states it is more like my saying 'Gottseidank' (Thank god) even though I'm an atheist in 3rd generation, just because it is part of our everyday language.

 

[noodleknitter]

Thanks for posting this.
I also thought that Einstein's 'Gott würfelt nicht' (God doesn't paly dice) was a sign of his faith. As your article states it is more like my saying 'Gottseidank' (Thank god) even though I'm an atheist in 3rd generation, just because it is part of our everyday language.

You are welcome! I thought it was very interesting when it was brought to my attention also.

 

[declansdad]

I It comes from a book entitled "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist", written by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek.

I'm sorry but this book is written by two men are are part of the Southern Evangelical Seminary. They have a vested interest in proving the existence of God and the truth of the Bible. In other words they have a bias.

Show me the information from a source that does not have a bias. I don't think you can do it, neither do I think that anyone from the other point of view could do so.

 

[ncdisneyfan]

I'm sorry but this book is written by two men are are part of the Southern Evangelical Seminary. They have a vested interest in proving the existence of God and the truth of the Bible. In other words they have a bias.

Show me the information from a source that does not have a bias. I don't think you can do it, neither do I think that anyone from the other point of view could do so.

Sounds like you have a bias against people who have a bias. Who isn't biased towards the way they believe? Aren't you? You are biased against these 2 men b/c they believe a certain way.

You're asking for information from a source that can't possibly exist. People write books. People are biased, one way or the other, based on how they believe.

But what this does show is that you're unwilling to read information with an objective mind. Why? If you're so convinced of your beliefs, do you think these men will sway you? Or are you not convinced enough of your beliefs? Then again, do you even have the ability to read such a book with an open mind, since you don't even know what's in it?

 

[cardaway]

I'm sorry but this book is written by two men are are part of the Southern Evangelical Seminary. They have a vested interest in proving the existence of God and the truth of the Bible. In other words they have a bias.

Show me the information from a source that does not have a bias. I don't think you can do it, neither do I think that anyone from the other point of view could do so.

There should be no reason to even go there. Faith is supposed to be believing in something that cannot be seen or proven to exist. You either have it or you don't.

I believe there is a higher power even though I can't prove it exists.

 

[ncdisneyfan]

There should be no reason to even go there. Faith is supposed to be believing in something that cannot be seen or proven to exist. You either have it or you don't.

I believe there is a higher power even though I can't prove it exists.

My faith is enough, for me. I have also studied what I believe from the perspective of someone who doesn't have enough faith to believe, so I can show reasons why they should believe, not just b/c of faith, but logically, which many people feel the need to have instead of faith. I do agree, you either have it or you don't. But it is harder for some to get to "having it" than others.

What do you believe is the "higher power" you acknowledge? God? And more importantly, WHY do believe in one, even though you can't prove it? Something must have made you believe, right?

 

[Mugg Mann]

Sure, I know what evidence means. Incidentally, I also know what "mountains of evidence" means, but not that anyone who says they have it have been able to give any of it...

Respectfully, ncdisneyfan, I did provide evidence with a verifiable cite back on post #129, and asked you to respond to a question that evidence posed. As of this point in time, you have not done so.

If you have responded directly to the question posed and I missed it somehow, please point to the specific post and I will be happy to apologize.

 

[auntpolly]

Actually, Einstien didn't believe in God. He used the word god to encompass the whole big universe, etc. This article comes from a very conservative web-site , and explains the lingo used.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i3/god_talk.asp

You mean he didn't believe God was an old white haired gentleman sitting on a throne up in the clouds like the rest of us Christians do? Odd!

Seriously, just because he thought of God as the force behind the universe, that doesn't mean he didn't believe in God. We all have our ideas about God, and not all of us think of God as a "he" or a "person".

 

[noodleknitter]

He didn't believe in the Biblical God. Just making a point that his name is not the one to bring up as an example in this case. If you want to go into the whole "higher power", spiritual/not religious stuff, it is a bit different, don't you think?

 

[Viking]

You mean he didn't believe God was an old white haired gentleman sitting on a throne up in the clouds like the rest of us Christians do?

You obviously haven't seen the movie 'Dogma' or you would know that she is a woman

 

[ncdisneyfan]

We have carbon-dated fossils that prove life existed on this planet 530 million years ago. Carbon dating is a valid technique incorporating radioactive decay rates that is accepted by scientists worldwide in all scientific fields. There's no opinion involved, except for those who refuse to believe scientific fact that contradicts what they want to believe elsewhere.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/504776.stm

Your turn. Is there anything in the bible stating life existed 530 million years ago, and if you claim that there is, what is your proof beyond "it says so", or some variant thereof?

This is operating under the assumption that carbon dating is accurate, especially back that far, right? Try these sites:

http://www.c14dating.com/k12.html

http://id-archserve.ucsb.edu/anth3/courseware/Chronology/08_Radiocarbon_Dating.html

Here's a quote from one of them: "In the 1940s, scientists succeeded in finding out how long it takes for radiocarbon to disappear, or decay, from a sample of carbon from a dead plant or animal. Willard Libby, the principal scientist, had worked in the team making the nuclear bomb during World War 2, so he was an expert in nuclear and atomic chemistry. After the war he became very interested in peaceful applications of atomic science. He and two students first measured the "half-life" of radiocarbon. The half-life refers to the amount of time it takes for half the radiocarbon in a sample of bone or shell or any carbon sample to disappear. Libby found that it took 5568 years for half the radiocarbon to decay. After twice that time (about 11000 years), another half of that remaining amount will have disappeared. After another 5568 years, again another half will have disappeared. You can work out that after about 50 000 years of time, all the radiocarbon will have gone. Therefore, radiocarbon dating is not able to date anything older than 60 or 70 000 years old. The job of a radiocarbon laboratory is to measure the remaining amounts of radiocarbon in a carbon sample. This is very difficult and requires a lot of careful work to produce reliable dates."

As you can see, I don't think the use of carbon dating for dates millions and billions of years old is accurate, nor do many scientists. You'll also note that these sites are not "biased" in any way (which should please declansdad), meaning they're not Christian-run or affiliated, but should provide an objective basis for looking at the validity of this "science." So, I don't buy that there's no "opinion" involved when looking at carbon dates of greater than 70k years.

That being said, there is nothing in the Bible which states that life existed 530 million years ago, nor did I claim that it did, b/c I don't believe it did, nor does the Bible support that. And based on the limitations of carbon dating, neither does it.

 

[ncdisneyfan]

Respectfully, ncdisneyfan, I did provide evidence with a verifiable cite back on post #129, and asked you to respond to a question that evidence posed. As of this point in time, you have not done so.

If you have responded directly to the question posed and I missed it somehow, please point to the specific post and I will be happy to apologize.

I don't think you provided "evidence" of anything, other than the fact that these 2 professors don't know the limitations of carbon dating. You provided a cite of their opinions that can't be verified by anything.

Still waiting for these "mountains of evidence"...

Yet nobody wants to even attempt to read the book I referenced, with an open mind, to see what it says to them. Amazing.